Diversity wars … part 1
Justin Trudeau’s ruminations about ‘diversity’ is
incomprehensible; I don’t think he has any idea of what cultural diversity is.
I grew up in a community that was diverse, with many
families speaking different languages at home. They came from different
cultures, had different customs, and attended different churches. We struggled
to adapt, and adopted English as a common language for communications. With the
exception of those of British heritage, we were all in the same boat.
We were mostly farmers and fishermen. We were
independent and self-sufficient and understood that made us vulnerable.
Accidents, illness and misfortune have no favourites. Anyone can face
difficulties that are hard to overcome.
We built churches, community halls, hospitals and
schools that served us all. People donated labour, materials, and expertise. It
did not matter where you were from or what language you spoke at home, or which
church you attended, if you knew the right way to do something, your help was
welcome.
If a church suffered wind damage, fire or flooding,
another congregation would offer use of their facility until the damaged church
could be restored or rebuilt. We could not deprive neighbours of worshiping as
they saw fit. If a farmer fell ill
during critical times, neighbours would rush their harvest, haying or planting,
so they could help the family in distress.
I recall an instance when winter roads became
impassible, except with a tractor and wagon, and a carefully planned route. Which
was why someone would announce they had to go to town for supplies, and ask if
anyone needed something. Those were the days of party-line telephones, and the
first part of the trip was to compile lists of neighbour needs.
I recall a spring flood where our sleepy little
river became a raging torrent, cutting off part of our community. Local boaters
came to the rescue, knowing where and how to cross safely. Neighbours on the
other side offered their vehicles for supply runs, and the boatmen got supplies
ferried back.
I also remember a fire threat that brought out the
whole community. The fire was in a peat bog adjacent to a forest, and we knew if
the fire got to the forest, many farms would be at risk. I was still a kid, but
big enough to carry two pails of water which I did. I carried them from the river, to the fire
site, until I dropped from exhaustion. I was no hero; just a scared kid in a
frightened community trying to save neighbours from devastation. Thank goodness
the men of the community succeeded. Some stayed for days, checking for hot
spots, and adding water until they were certain the underground fire could not
flare up again.
I am going to repeat a line from above: We were
independent and self-sufficient and understood that made us vulnerable.
Our society has embraced the concept of
independence, without realizing the risks of vulnerability. If faced with tough
decisions, they expect help, which they do not extend to others. They have also
embraced the concept of self-sufficiency, without recognizing this also mean
running the risk of helplessness when things go wrong -- which they inevitably
do.
A significant segment of our society is enamoured
with its freedoms, and rights, however it fails to understand that dictates accepting
risks and responsibilities.
While I enjoy freedom of expression, that freedom carries
the risk that someone I offend may attack me verbally or physically. I have no
wish to be found ‘dead right’, particularly the ‘dead’ part.
I believe those ‘of age’, essentially adults, should
take responsibility for their actions, behaviour, decisions, and errors. They should
also do their best to apologize for mistakes and put things right again. Furthermore,
they should be willing to help others, particularly when they suffer injury or
devastation not of their own making.
That said, we seem to have increased numbers of
people who are ‘of age’, but have not matured into adulthood. Could this perhaps be because it is not fun
to take responsibility for yourself?
Diversity Wars … part 2
The story started with Prime Minister Lester
Pearson’s appointment of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism,
in 1963. On examining its terms of reference, the commission could not find the
word in a dictionary.
The commission concluded that the term referred to
the existence, in Canada, of two principal cultures - one associated with the
English language, and one associated with the French. The function of the
commission was to examine the state of each of the two cultures, and the
opportunity for each to exist and flourish; and the set of conditions that
would enable members of the two cultures to co-operate effectively.
Pierre Trudeau, who was elected in 1968, believed
in uniting Canada with Quebec and wanted Quebec to be equal. In 1969 he had parliament pass the Official
Languages Act, making Canada a bilingual nation – that gave English and French
equal status in the government of Canada.
Biculturalism however, turned out to be a far more
difficult problem. Various ethnic groups, including groups in Quebec, renounced
the concept of dominant English and French cultures, pointing out that they had
also contributed to the formation, and growth, of Canada. They were not comfortable choosing a culture
that was foreign to them.
The Bilingualism and Biculturalism commission wrote
extensively about "cultural groups", and made recommendations about
the assistance necessary for them to preserve their languages, and to support
their cultural activities.
In 1971 the federal government, of Prime Minister
Pierre Trudeau, declared its commitment to the principle of multiculturalism, and
in so doing, formalized a policy to protect and promote diversity, recognize
the rights of Aboriginal peoples, and support the use of Canada’s two official
languages. This led to the establishment, in 1973, of the Ministry of
Multiculturalism, as well as the Canadian Consultative Council on
Multiculturalism.
The concept was again acknowledged in the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms of 1982, which states that the Charter itself “shall be
interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation, and enhancement, of
the multicultural heritage of Canadians.”
On July 21st 1988, the Progressive Conservative
government of Brian Mulroney passed the Canadian
Multiculturalism Act, which formalized the government's commitment to
"promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and
communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all
aspects of Canadian society". This
was done by establishing legislation to protect ethnic, racial, linguistic and
religious diversity within Canadian society.
Armed with a summary of how multiculturalism
developed, we begin to see how governments can muck up pretty much anything
they touch. In fact, or should we say unfortunately, no one stopped to
consider that Canada was culturally diverse prior to confederation. From
1867 until 1971 (a span of over a century), a wide variety of cultural groups celebrated
their heritage as they saw fit without interference or permission.
Government response to the Royal Commission on
Bilingualism and Biculturalism accomplished two things:
- The Province of Quebec was given equal rights and powers to the remainder of Canada in the federal government.
- Canada outside of Quebec was fractured -- balkanized -- to make it less politically effective.
Cultural diversity has transitioned from people of
common cultures celebrating their heritage, into a political and election tool.
Adhering to cultural heritage has become more important than citizenship.
Quebec, and its French culture, are highly resistant to other cultures, while
demanding that its culture be recognized and respected everywhere else. That is
a major part of the Pierre Trudeau legacy.
I am very proud of my cultural heritage, but like
my father and grandfathers, I am a Canadian first and always. Cultural
diversity is only valuable when cultures respect one another, and work together
for the common good of our communities, provinces, and country.
When cultural groups compete for power, and
prestige, democracy is at risk, and civil war is on the horizon.
JOHN
FELDSTED grew up in a conservative family with a deep interest in arts, history
and law. Reading was a requisite to education. Over the years he has actively
participated in politics at the civic, provincial and federal levels in
Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. While steadfastly conservative, he believes various
conservative parties are not.
“The lust for power tends to
overcome adherence to principles, so I am at times critical of conservative
party actions” ~~ John Feldsted
Comments
Post a Comment